Article Tools

The push for increased pedestrian safety along Milpas Street — spurred most recently by the death of 15-year-old Sergio Romero last October — continued this week as traffic planners and neighborhood advisors made site visits to the two most troubled intersections: Milpas and Ortega and Milpas and Yanonali. Traffic engineer Derrick Bailey, as he has in the past, said the locations don’t meet state requirements for stoplights — a fact continually and fervently contested by area activists — but he presented a potpourri of other potential improvements, including pedestrian islands, lane re-striping, and flashing lights. As Bailey spoke, explaining pedestrians need to look for a 21-second gap between cars to safely cross — a tall order during most hours of the day — a woman made a mad dash across the street, hurrying even faster halfway through as cars failed to yield.

Bailey and his team will discuses the options at a joint meeting of the Transpor­tation and Circulation Committee and Neighborhood Advisory Council on Thursday to determine what suggestions to pitch to the city council. The driver who struck and killed Romero — 20-year-old Manuel Flores Jr. — was sentenced to one year in County Jail last week after pleading no contest to vehicular manslaughter. City police will carry out crosswalk enforcement stings at four undisclosed locations throughout the city this Thursday, March 22.

Comments

"two most troubled intersections: Milpas and Ortega and Milpas and Yanonali. Traffic engineer Derek Bailey, as he has in the past, said the locations don’t meet state requirements for stoplights".Does that mean more deaths would warrant a traffic light?

To quote from the article:"Traffic engineer Derek Bailey, as he has in the past, said the locations don’t meet state requirements for stoplights — a fact continually and fervently contested by area activists — but he presented a potpourri of other potential improvements, including pedestrian islands, lane re-striping, and flashing lights."

So if some people or "activists" can explain why, yes WHY, the city traffic engineer and the city attorney are wrong here, those would be most excellent points to raise and explain during this transportation and neighborhood committees meeting tonight.

Simply screaming and holding up signs to promote wishful thinking contrary to state rules will not change the stubborn technical and legal facts here. That is the true logical solution, not a biased unscientific opinion poll by a biased petitioner.

Fortunately the city staff and committee advisers have crafted a menu of pedestrian safety installations that can improve the situation and be both technically and legally sound, and, as a bonus, fiscally affordable.

The time for theatrics has run its course. The time is now, today, for the disgruntled "activists" to truly help the community they purport to represent by promoting reality-based solutions instead opposing whatever the city authorities are proposing simply because the city authorities are proposing it instead of them.

The nearby residents of Milpas Street are being set up for extremely disappointing failure by these "activists" who should know better and probably do know better if their goal really were about pedestrian safety grounded in realistic solutions.

Raging against the city government machine may be fun for some "activists" but for reasons only known to them, these "activists" are choosing to practice divisive politics driven by distracting, emotional wedge issues for illusory political gains. The view may seem good from the "activist" cheap seats, but the reality-based decisions are made by the adult players on the field.

Far more than they apparently realize, we all are wise to the divisive politics of these "activists" and are watching them swirl down the drain of their political careers, such as they are.

In answer to your question, no, there is no warrant for "deaths" at an intersection that would trigger installation of a traffic signal. However, there is what we call a "crash experience warrant" that requires a certain number of accidents at an intersection over a given period of time. As far as I know, these intersections don't meet that warrant.

The state is very specific about signal warrants and traffic signal installations. And even when a signal "meets" signal warrants, that does not mean a signal needs to be or will be installed. To quote the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (which is available to the public online and is the governing document for traffic control in the State of California): "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal." The warrants are merely a guide for consideration of a signal installation.

Further, it is a widely-known fact in the engineering community that, while signals can reduce certain types of accidents at an intersection, they also increase the propensity for rear-end type accidents. Installing a signal that does not meet the minimum signal warrants for consideration of installation now opens the City to new liability claims it would otherwise not have weathered but for the unwarranted signal.

The bottom line is, Derek Bailey and the rest of the City have their hands tied by due dilligence to the laws of this state, and to their constituents. But screaming "signal" in a crowded room of uninformed residents gets these "activists" nowhere fast, and no closer to the signal they blindly desire.

As a Milpas area - not sure how far the "area" extends - I quite agree with John_Adams's, although "screaming and holding up signs" is helpful in getting attention. What it is more is an indication of non-responsiveness of city government: true or not, the perception is that without being pushed, the city powers-that-be will do nothing except for their own neighborhoods. (And those are West Side (2), Upper East (3), Montecito-edge (1), Marine Terrace-Mesa (1).) It's only because of the MCA that there are visibly increased police patrols and attention.

However, it's ridiculous to rage against the machine of state highway regs. There does need to be slow-downs at Yanonali/Milpas. Pedestrian islands would help both. The Ortega crossing has the added problem of frequent jay walkers outside of the crosswalk (not that that is an excuse for not stopping), but it is better lit in the daytime than is the Yanonali, which seems to me to be a more serious issue. Both crossings have had deaths; the Ortega St. one is more recent. And finally, jay-walking pedestrians should also be ticketed. Whatever.... I shall not march tonight.

Wow-not sure where the smack-down on community activists comes from. I seem to remember our President was one. Activists help people organize and express themselves or they are ignored. That's been the problem in the Milpas corridor/neighborhoods for a long time. I have never heard anyone from the East Side complain that City Hall has been too responsive. It is important and necessary for activists to galvanize a community so they shake off the apprehension of addressing their government and compel results.

If it wasn't for the community activists there never would have been a standing room only crowd at the meeting tonight where traffic alternatives for Milpas were discussed. If it wasn't for the community activists Milpas would continue to suffer from a lack of attention. There is no such thing as benign neglect, only active disregard.

It was particularly rewarding to see the young people, those who have been living with the consequences of active disregard, march to the microphone and speak to committee members. They did it with confidence and competence. The genie is out of the bottle-they have tasted it and it was obvious they liked it. Their parents have a right to be proud. And thank you community activists for helping to clear a path to the microphone, City Hall and beyond.

What ever happened to "Look both ways before crossing the street"? Really not difficult. Millions of people manage to do this everyday all around the world. Yet for some reason, these activists feel they are entitled to cross the street at leisure and not avoid large objects that can injure or kill them. Typical liberals screaming for government intervention to protect them from their own stupidity...

RESPECT the right-of-way of pedestrians. Always stop for any pedestrian crossing at corners or other crosswalks, even if the crosswalk is in the middle of the block, at corners with or without traffic lights, whether or not the crosswalks are marked by painted lines.

Under 'Crosswalks'-

A crosswalk is the part of the roadway set aside for pedestrian traffic. Most intersections have a pedestrian crosswalk whether or not lines are painted on the street. Most crosswalks are located at corners, but they can also be located in the middle of the block. Before turning a corner, watch for people about to cross the street. PEDESTRIANS HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN MARKED OR UNMARKED CROSSWALKS....

Some crosswalks have flashing lights to warn you that pedestrians may be crossing. Look for pedestrians and be prepared to stop, whether or not the lights are flashing.

--So, as usual government entities believe in 'alternate' methods of attempting solutions to driving issues, as opposed to fixing the real problem, which is the drivers.

Will say it again: Better overhead street lighting MUST be a priority because Milpas remains the darkest thoroughfare, lumen-wise, in the city. Light it up so the safe AND crazywalkers can be seen after dark. Duh.

Some neighborhood residents have tried for many years to make many areas of the Eastside safer, in addition to making Milpas Street safe we have also requested Mason Street (from Salinas to Milpas) add stop signs or lights, NO was the answer because it is a state highway! Cliff Drive is a state highway but changes were made there because of the outcry of residents in the Mesa area. Residents on the Eastside have noticed a NEW four-way STOP sign (Nopal/Mason Streets) just one block from Marborg (hmmm where is the warrant report on that new stop sign)! City Staff recommended a (traffic light) near the Los Banos pool just steps away from the traffic light at the corner of Castillo and Cabrillo (no warrant on that!). There are 'exceptions' to every rule for some folks in this CITY!

I agree that activism has its place and this is the correct intersection for activism. It is too bad that the State Traffic Handbook or 'bible' that regulates design with dictation over what the immediate neighbors or locals want. It would be great to have our entire transportation system get an overhaul. A traffic light at this location seems logical but given the emphasis on moving cars and moving them fast; what staff offers is probably the best solution for now. Other solutions would be to start seeking compensation from all those automobile and moto-cycle manufactures for promoting performance, noise and pollution on our public roadways.

OK, time to upset all the south of the border people out there. But this is for real. In Mexico, its absolute chaos on the roads down there. So when you have those people sneaking into the US, they bring with them no sense of roadway safety. They dont even teach that stuff down there, just how to sneak into America. So people dart in and out of roads like loose chickens. Then they sneak up here and try that crap and get hit by cars. then they cry lawsuit and a bunch of other stuff that, must be translated, and demand that us legal people look for them darting into traffic. Anyone else notice that in the past 10 years, there has not been a single non-hispanic person hit on milpas street???? These are the facts! now you may begin the cries of "racist" and all that other crap, but you cant deny the facts!